It’s been a while since an update, but here‘s a fascinating piece from ‘The Independent Institute’ on the Philosopher Alvin Planinga receiving the Rescher Prize. I spent some time with the Institute during the summer of 2009, and can attest to the continuous stream of excellent and thought-provoking pieces from their research fellows on economic and social issues.

Economists know that international trade is mutually beneficial. Barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, reduce consumer choice and make goods more expensive. And after all, what business has the state in precluding your mutually beneficial exchange just because the counter-party is a foreign citizen?

Unfortunately, international disputes can put free trade in jeopardy. When states respond to apparent ‘distortions’ by slapping tariffs on incoming goods, they’re trying to retaliate. In reality, they’re hurting their own citizens. What good could possibly come of trade wars?

Today, the line between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ producers is more blurry than ever before. The MacBook I’m typing on right now was sold to me by an Irish retailer, having been assembled in China from parts produced in Taiwan and Korea. It was designed by American engineers, and some of Apple’s profits no doubt return to private investors here in Ireland too. Who benefited from my purchase? Lots of people, some foreign and some domestic.

Even if international trade wasn’t integrated in this way though, tariffs and quotas would still hurt domestic consumers. Unfortunately though, there are strong interests aligned with governments throughout the world determined to restrict trade and maintain their dominant position in markets free from foreign competition. This is a simple example of a collective action problem: small groups of firms and workers find it easier to organise themselves than millions of disparate consumers – even when the benefits to the former are outweighed by the costs to the latter.

This isn’t the whole story though. Many consumers just support protectionist measures because they think free trade sends jobs overseas. They don’t understand the full benefits of free trade, and it is this ignorance that allows governments to retaliate and spur trade wars. Think of the Republicans complaining about China’s undervalued currency.

What have we learned? Firstly, game theorists would say that removing restrictions is a dominant strategy in determining optimal trade policy. No matter what the other guy does, you should always try to keep trade as free as possible. Secondly, some governments don’t determine their trade policy with regard to the greater good and will instead try to subsidise or otherwise benefit their exporters. Thirdly, if you give the irrational, ignorant public an excuse, they will try to slap trade barriers on your goods and services. So much for the dominant strategy.

What if the public knew the truth and adopted the dominant strategy instead? Then foreign nations would suffer no punishment or retaliation if they imposed trade restrictions on our exporters. They would exploit this advantage by benefiting their favoured firms and importing goods into our markets. If we threatened to retaliate, they wouldn’t believe us – it’s not a credible threat because we know we’re hurting ourselves in the process.

So how do countries maintain a credible threat of retaliation under the status quo? By hiding the costs from the consumer, and exploiting his ignorance. If they knew the truth, would consumers suffer trade restrictions on imported goods in order to benefit a single exporting firm? Probably not. The threat of retaliation is only credible under the status quo because it’s not rational.

Revenge isn’t rational in general. If somebody does hurt you, it’s never optimal to follow through on a threat of vengeance. The threat of vengeance is only credible because the decision to pursue it is not rationally considered. So in a world with free trade on the edge of a knife, it’s not so bad that the public sometimes cry out for trade restrictions. If they didn’t, our deterrence of same would lack all credibility.

The most interesting question that I’ve addressed in a debate recently has been whether there should be a market for adoption and surrogacy. Although the concept jars with most people, the real reason to oppose such a market isn’t immediately clearly.

After all, if two individuals can make themselves happier through the exchange of money for services, what business does the state have in prohibiting it? We have markets for everything else, and there’s strong evidence to suggest that organs trade should be legalised. So what is the difference between a kidney and a baby?

The economist Robert H Frank in his book ‘The Return of the Economic Naturalist’ completely dismisses the case in favour of tax breaks for the rich (a policy aggressively pursued by the then Bush administration). As far as boosting employment is concerned, he claims, it doesn’t matter what tax rate business owners are paying.

If the addition of another worker to the company is profitable, the entrepreneur will hire him regardless of what tax rate he is paying. This is the decision criterion of the rational utility-maximising capitalist, he says. Although Frank’s logic is extremely elegant, it is ultimately flawed.

Although division has arised in the parliamentary party, Fine Gael announced over the weekend plans to launch referenda on a number of issues if elected in the next national election – including the abolition of Seanad Éireann. The Irish Times carries full details.

Given the enormous patronage power that the Seanad offers to the Taoiseach and the rest of the political establishment, this is either an extremely foolish move by Enda Kenny or a truly noble one. The question is: will the public reward him enough to balance the internal political opprobrium?

Some of you will know that the past two weeks have been ‘Fairtrade Fortnight’, and today brings the end to an exhaustive media campaign persuading consumers that they should switch over to Fairtrade products.

It’s all very well-meaning, and certainly makes consumers feel good about themselves. But does Fairtrade actually make life better for the poorest farmers in the world? The more ethical policy would be to embrace free trade and stop keeping prices artificially high.

Companies operate in a world of uncertainty. Candidates for employment can only communicate so much information to differentiate themselves, with the result that firms search for innovative ways to identify talented graduates.

Whether you call it networking, cronyism or simply the Old Boys’ Club – using contacts and connections to obtain an edge in the job market seems necessary in today’s competitive world. Should proponents of meritocracy really condemn such mechanisms?